Rate The Last Movie(s) You Watched

Comments

I used to really like the HP series, I own all the books and I re-read them recently. And it suddenly struck me that round about the fourth book the wizarding attitude to Muggles starts to become really patronising, and later it's outright offensive. "Oh those silly Muggles, they use ridiculous things like electricity and stiches and metal wands that go bang, clearly we must wipe their memories at every available opportunity because they're just so silly and we know best." The whole thing smacks of British colonialism in the worst possible way. "oh you silly natives, you don't know how to run your country, we'll just take it off you and run it properly!"

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see an AU fic where the SAS storm the Death Eater hideout and shoot the bastards. Does a Shield Charm work on bullets? More importantly, can you cast one in the space of time it takes for a bullet to leave the chamber and blow your brains out, while you're choking on tear gas? MUGGLE MAGIC BITCHES.

Isn't it a bad idea to put all the sneaky, bigoted kids in Slytherin, all the brave kids in Gryffindor, etc.? The point of a school is not just to teach students about how life works, it's also to build character. If all the evil kids hang out only with other evil kids, they would always be evil! You shouldn't divide children based on their personalities, you should MIX them!

I'd like to point out that this was because the four founders of the school couldn't agree with what and who to teach and thus segregated it according to their own ideals. Yes, this is absolutely wrong and probably could've been changed by later school administration, but you don't screw with tradition apparently. Besides, three of the houses might go for integration, but the Slytherins wouldn't have it any other way.

And when was it ever said that magic was against Christianity? Are wizards not allowed to believe in Jesus or Kali or Allah or whoever the hell they want just like anybody else, just because of something they're able to do?

EDIT: Oh, and in The Goblet Of Fire, when Harry's name was chosen for the Triwizard Tournament, WHY DIDN'T HARRY JUST BACK DOWN?! What's the big deal? So, yeah, no one has ever backed down from the tournament, but WHAT'S THE WORST THAT COULD HAPPEN IF SOMEONE DID? Does the world end? Does every wizard explode and die? That Twilight guy would still be alive if only Harry just said "Okay, fine, I'll not go."

BINDING. MAGICAL. CONTRACT. It's spelled out in both the book and the film why Harry can't simply back down. It might even be on the same level as the Unbreakable Vow, where you drop dead if you fail to meet the requirements.

And when was it ever said that magic was against Christianity? Are wizards not allowed to believe in Jesus or Kali or Allah or whoever the hell they want just like anybody else, just because of something they're able to do?

Another bestselling book set that trope in motion. Kind of like how vampires have had their cultural image shaped by film, the Christian stance on witches is shaped by literature.

And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

The last movie I saw was Wonder Woman I liked it a lot. One thing that pissed me off though is

her invisible jet was never explained at all. There living on an amazon island cut off from everyone but they have an invisible jet with invisible missiles at there use. The guy who was stuck on the island who should be asking questions 4 the audience doesn't even question the jet at all

It depends if they try to "cure" the gay child, banish them from the community or kill them.

I think witches got the test where it kills them either way.

Homosexual children of religious families generally don't get killed, even though that's the prescribed biblical punishment(to be fair, this isn't until they actually have sexual relations, but still). My guess is that a witch in a modern Christian family would be shunned in the same manner as a homosexual child. Maybe more, maybe less, really depends on a lot of psychological factors that are pretty individual.

And when was it ever said that magic was against Christianity? Are wizards not allowed to believe in Jesus or Kali or Allah or whoever the hell they want just like anybody else, just because of something they're able to do?

I don't remember them celebrating Christmas in a particularly Christian way. They have their own traditions for many things, why just that? Heck, I didn't know some people celebrating Christmas as the birth of Jesus before I was a teenager. (Granted, in French the common name is Noël (Yule), not Christmas, so it would be harder to pull off in English.)

The celebration itself predates Jesus, so if they want to have a winter celebration and exchange gifts, I fail to see why that would be a problem regardless of their actual beliefs.

While I like Dashing's arguments, I'd also like to toss in these rebuttals from the other side of the fourth wall.

I'd like to point out that this was because the four founders of the school couldn't agree with what and who to teach and thus segregated it according to their own ideals. Yes, this is absolutely wrong and probably could've been changed by later school administration, but you don't screw with tradition apparently. Besides, three of the houses might go for integration, but the Slytherins wouldn't have it any other way.

And when was it ever said that magic was against Christianity? Are wizards not allowed to believe in Jesus or Kali or Allah or whoever the hell they want just like anybody else, just because of something they're able to do?

BINDING. MAGICAL. CONTRACT. It's spelled out in both the book and the film why Harry can't simply back down. It might even be on the same level as the Unbreakable Vow, where you drop dead if you fail to meet the requirements.

And now for something completely different.

Ah, okay. You're the first one to point these out, thanks. Not one of my friends can ever have a nerdy discussion with me...

the new harry potter movie. Saw it on the first day it came out and I LOVED IT!!! It had a great storie, some good jokes every once and a while, and a really sad ending that made for a great cliffhanger.

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see an AU fic where the SAS storm the Death Eater hideout and shoot the bastards. Does a Shield Charm work on bullets? More importantly, can you cast one in the space of time it takes for a bullet to leave the chamber and blow your brains out, while you're choking on tear gas? MUGGLE MAGIC BITCHES.

I always thought it would have been a great idea to just send the army out against Voldemort, maybe with some sort of wizard support squad. He can't kill everyone at once and he most definitely can't block every single bullet. But of course, they had to try to fight the guy on his own terms, which just isn't really all that clever.

Ghostbusters - 11/11 - Do I really need to explain my score? I adore this film and every aspect of it.

District 9 - 11/11 - Great sci-fi film; great action; great heroes.

The Expendables - 6/11 - The action wasn't bad but I feel like this movie was better when it was Rambo. Statham and Li were the best parts; but mostly it just doesn't hold up to the type of film its trying so hard to emulate. All in all it's not a film I'll remember.

Iron Man II - 6/11 - A much less interesting rehash of the first film. Downey Jr. is still great as Stark, and Sam Rockwell is fantastic as always, but Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, and Samuel L. Jackson are criminally underused. The action is okay, but mostly not that great until the final action scenes.

Ok, I'm going to start rating by "grades" now, because I feel the number system is too limited for my feelings and feels a little more technical than actual letter grades.

Tangled
B-

Where do I start?

Well, on a technical level it was gorgeous, as expected. I mostly enjoyed the settings and effects the best, they were wonderfully designed and interesting to look at on the big screen. And of course, there's the hair, which is not only handed fantastically in terms of animation, but hair that long, which generally any long hair at all is preferred to be avoided in animation, has to be given automatic respect to be handled that way. (especially in the case of rendering) The character animation itself, to me, felt like nothing special. There were times when it had its unique charm, but otherwise it's something that doesn't really differentiate the movie to me from other works of CGI animation. (also the physics in this movie seemed a little weird at times, even it terms of cartoony animation, but it's minor so I'll look past it I guess) That doesn't mean it isn't animated very well, I'm just saying for a movie that claims to have achieved some new "feeling" with CGI, it really doesn't seem that way to me.

It can be said of course, that the style is unique because it's transferring the old Disney style of fairy tale movies to 3D, which is true, but that's exactly why I don't find it as unique as previous animated CGI efforts. In fact, this whole "we have to prove to the audience we can make a typical Disney princess movie seem traditional through the use of CGI" is exactly the movie's main flaw, not just in terms of animation. It just seems like it's being sold on the main fact that it's a "classic Disney princess flick, but in 3D!" and that's a huge cop-out because it gives them an excuse for not trying to be different. I'm pretty sure it can easily become a welcome addition to the family of Disney fairy tale movies, because it certainly captures the spirit of them, but to say it's capable of catching the exact same feeling that traditional 2D animation captures is a huge stretch, and it baffles me that people fall for the whole "we're trying to prove we can evolve our style using CGI" because it's no evolution of 2D at all. That's like saying sculpting is an evolution of painting. If it would have been actually made in hand-drawn animation in some of the ways the art book demonstrates I'm pretty sure it would have felt totally different. As it stands, it's not as unique as it thinks it is from other movies in CGI and maybe it wouldn't have been as unique as other Disney princess movies when done in 2D, but it certainly would have been more likely to, especially in terms of standing out from other animation studios. Also, this movie has been worked on and hyped up for so long, and we have been promised all sorts of unique styles throughout (including 2D) that it just seems like so much wasted potential.

As for the story itself, again, it suffers too much from slavishly trying to be traditional, to the point of looking overdone. It wasn't as predictable as I was expecting and it's certainly a lot better and different than the "Enchanted 2" the trailers made it seem to be, but it was still pretty damn predictable. So many elements were so forced from tradition it was annoying. I mean you got your little animal sidekick that is really there for no reason, (except at the end, which actually seemed just like a last-minute convenience because

she was going to die anyway and could have easily tripped on the window itself

) the generic horse with human-like personality, (I did laugh a little at him but he mostly just seemed waaaaay overdone, it's like "quick! This is the funny horse of the movie! Make him do something silly here! Make him have a bro relationship with his rider! QUICK, A SILLY EXPRESSION. Sleeping Beauty? El Dorado? Mulan? No, this horse is different! Really!" I mean, I thought the viking dudes were a lot funnier and unique and I felt they should have focused more on them for laughs rather than giving the horse too much personality where it's not needed.) the song numbers, (I actually really enjoyed the original score and it's one of my favorite aspects of the movie, but the lyrical songs themselves are forgettable and feel really unneeded.) the expected, forced romance, and so on. In general, the romance just seemed really sloppy. Really now? Did we need the obvious

"looooook at uuuuuuuss we're falliiiiiiiiing in loooooooove on a boooaaaaat with pretty liiiiiights" song? Geez, I get some kids won't catch the obvious subtext as easily as adults but I'm sure they got the point by then.

In general, I just wasn't into the romance at all! Which is terrible because to be honest, romance is one of my favorite parts of movies, especially animated ones. This one just felt, again, extremely forced. When a romance is to be expected from everyone in the first place, you have to put some effort into making it interesting, unpredictable and full of at least some sort of effective tension. Maybe it's just because Flynn and Rapunzel were generally weakly developed characters. No really! Do we ever get to find out at least a little of Flynn's background? Why he's a thief? Why we are expected to believe he has these sudden feelings? It just kind of seems like he's put in there as the love interest and then "oh by the way he's a thief, surely this would automatically make the romantic subplot/plot interesting!" Rapunzel herself was a pretty neat character, I have to admit, they made her airheadedness actually cute and endearing, (and it made sense, considering how she grew up) while still retaining personality. (Though I was sad they didn't make a character who has never had any social contact outside of Mother Gothel for all her life a little more awkward, but whatever.) In reality though, I was a bit disappointed with her overall development. I mean what was with

the sudden realization she was a princess? Was it just me or was that just plain sloppy writing?

Nevertheless it was kind of annoying that she's just like

"herp derp the world is a pretty ok place!" just from that realization alone, not to mention the "you're my dream now, Eugene!!!" NO, DISNEY, NO.

In short, it just feels like a step down from what The Princess and the Frog tried to achieve, and generally succeeded, which was to make a traditional animated Disney princess fairy tale, but to make it unique from the rest, with twists. The "princess" being independent, with an actual dream outside of finding true love, and her dream is not replaced, but made better by the finding of love. Not to mention it actually made the generic animal sidekicks not so generic with actual purposes and small (but effective) developments.

On the plot's good points, I enjoyed the villain very, very much. She herself was a traditional villain but with unique twists. She was effectively menacing in that I felt uncomfortable when she was around. She was the classic "evil stepmom" but without being overly physically evil. She's touched up with that sort of familiarity with Rapunzel where it makes her even more unsettling than if she was downright abusive, and they give her an effective understandable, but still evil, reason for why she does what she does. Plus, her song is probably the only lyrical song I enjoyed. I didn't laugh very much overall at the movie, but my general amusement came from the viking thugs, and I wished they were made to be a bit more developed other than

"let's sing about our dreams, now we're friends so we'll help you escape twice for plot convenience" so that they were more endearing and funny when shown at the end.

As much as I thought the horse was too much, he's still the best animated character next to Rapunzel and when he pulls an exaggerated expression/pose it's pretty damn funny. The whole plot in general is pretty uniquely done in the whole "Rapunzel with a twist" thing, they changed story elements as expected, but it's mostly good change. Yet they also kept stuff while putting little twists on them that I enjoyed, such as

the magical tears just like in the story, except this time it also makes sense to its own individual plot.

To sum it up, as a whole, the movie isn't very revolutionary in terms of CGI animation or plot, and in fact is too traditional to the point of slavish and overdone, and pretty much a step down from what Princess and the Frog tried to do. Even so, the visuals are spectacular and it's a fun ride, even if rocky, through the plot, especially so if you love traditional Disney tales. It's worth it for the big screen on that alone, and I'm also willing to see it again in theaters if another friend wants me to come see it. Personal feelings aside, it's still easily deserved as a future Disney classic.

Star Trek The Next Generation: First Contact 9.5/10 - This is still probably one of my favorite movies ever. Some of it might be nostalgia factor since I grew up with (and am still a huge fan of) Star Trek The Next Generation, but in general it's a very well constructed movie. The special effects are good, the action is tight and the character interactions are consistent and well handled. I love even the stupid crap down on Earth, like Troi getting drunk and Barclay being his usual spaz self. My one complaint would be that I felt everyone got an equally large role except for Crusher, which seems a bit unfair given she got shafted in terms of episode focus during the seven season run of the show, but even that is a fairly minor complaint.

This got me really missing Star Trek and is the reason I'm currently running TNG in the background as work on assignments. Now I feel like I should back up and run through all the Star Trek movies. Maybe I'll hate Star Trek the Motion Picture and the new movie less....And maybe I'll get the tide to turn back in and ride a unicorn to class.

I enjoyed it, and was quite entertaining as an action movie, and even though it's about a guy who wears a suit and flys around at supersonic speeds, it managed to stay somehow realistic and hardly cheesy at all!

Just finished watching The Thief and The Cobbler: Recobbled Cut, and I have to say, its a very nice film.
Admittadley I haven't been tainted with the other versions of it, so I took it as I saw it.
Despite the inconsistency, (since it was composed of different versions), the animation was absolutely fantastic, (I just love the small details here and there, like zigzags shoes, and the use of tacks to convey Tacks emotions), the mix of styles blend very well and create something unique.

I'd give it a 8.5/10, not one of the greatest films I've ever seen, but still very good and highly recommended for everyone!

Watched the new Chronicles of Narnia movie last weekend. I really liked it, pretty nice movie and adaptation. Oh, and thank ****ing god for character development, Eustace would make it unbearable to watch otherwise.

...why would you say that? I enjoyed Iron Man 2 also, and I usually hate superhero movies.

Because in my opinion relative to the first part or some of the other better superhero movies or movies generally this one had a couple of major flaws and giving it a almost perfect score therefore is overrated.

A. Seven Samurai 8.5/10 (great film, especially for its time, nice characters but certain parts nowadays feel kind of aged).
B. House of Flying Daggers 8.5/10 (what a beautiful and partly touching movie, just wow, a couple of memorable scenes, the story and dialogues could be better).

I actually watched The Matrix trilogy all on Sunday as I refused to move from my warm bed all day. The original's great, most'll agree on that, but the other two are pretty unfairly slated. For all the obtuse crap there is in there, may I remind you that there's like a million Hugo Weaving's on screen at once. Please take this into account and reassess

Wow, you're easy to please, must be great even watching TV with this standard.

The whole "I don't watch TV" thing to me always smacks of elitism to be quite frank. TV caters for a wide variety of people and tastes, it's only natural that the vast majority of stuff being aired doesn't appeal to you or me or Joe Bloggs.

I don't personally watch TV a lot outside of the news, but I don't think it's necessarily a vapid wasteland by any means

Edit: All that said I wouldn't be giving Iron Man 2 a 9/10 anytime soon

Depends on your ratings scale I guess? Actually, 9/10 is a bit high, but if you're like a videogame reviewer and 7 is "it works, I guess, you know, kind of average", then an "8" would be arguably warranted.

I don't see a reason for watching TV anymore. Beside of a few football matches, a WM, cabaret and one children show it just doesn't make sense anymore as i've already seen what i wanted to, i don't need the trash and if they produce something interesting every decade, you can get it on DVD as well.

Iron Man 2, like many of the TV productions, to a large degree was a trash movie, maybe a 3/10, 4/10 if i'm really drunk and all feels magically fine. Simply one of those films you felt guilty wasting your money and time after leaving the cinema.

Chico & Rita - 7.5/10
Animation for grown-ups. Follows the stormy on/off relationship between two musicans (a singer and a piano player), from Havana to New York to Paris and back, through the jazz era of the 1950s and beyond. AMAZING soundtrack, as you might imagine.

It Happened One Night - 9/10 <-- lovelovelove
1930s film about a spoiled little rich girl who runs away to New York, falling for a roguish newspaper reporter along the way. Engaging characters, beautiful story, clever script. Laughed out loud so many times. Modern romantic comedies are pale imitations of this stuff.

The Dish - 7.5/10
Australian movie about the radio receiver dish in Parkes, which was responsible for putting the 1969 moon landing footage on TV. Nerdy and fun. Subtle, gentle humour and ocker accents all over. Made me homesick.

Drunken Master - 11/11 - The story of an arrogant, disrespectful, bark-worse than-bite little git-bastard who is shown repeatedly what a worm he really is, until, humiliated, he trains in a secret art of kung fu and gains respect for himself and for others. A fantastic story of growth.

Drunken Master II - 9/11 - This sequel pales story-wise in comparison to the classic that is the first. BUT. Action-wise and acting-wise, it's just as good. Jackie Chan really impresses me sometimes with his acting in his films outside the kung fu parts, and he pulls off some strong emotions in this film, but that's nothing strange as he did the same in the first. The woman who plays his mother really is the highlight of the film. She is badass. Action wise this is one of the best kung fu films of all time, no doubt, but even though the action in this is on a bigger scale, I still prefer Drunken Master One.

Someone gave Seven Samurai 8.5 out of 10... but generic mass market CGI comedy gets a perfect score? I think I'm done with this thread.

It's not my problem that I have a different opinion than you. I thought it was a fantastic movie, so I gave it a score reflecting that. If you didn't see it- or didn't like it- fine. Whatever. Not a big deal.